Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
budgets of the clinton years, if we could return to the trillion dollar peace dividend that the bush years left on the doorstep of the clinton years. but none of that is ever examined. also, we also are the beneficiaries of a massive technology bubble and the markets. >> plants and reduced the capital gains tax by 30 percent. he increased the income tax by 10%, but the huge surge in revenues under clinton came through the capital gains tax cut, not from the income-tax increase. lou: you and i have done what the republicans, perhaps too often. we talk about the economics of it, the theory of it, if you will, the extraction of it, but but the reality is the republican party has not come up with a rejoinder, a response to a, if you will, a socialist redistributionist president who right now claims the field is on because there is no other standard flying over that field. there is a speaker of the house to is simply saying, this is not right. you know, we are not at the table and complaining, but not, not engaging. >> i think we have got to engage the argument. we cannot win the argument while
. they also want us to begin to balance the books just like we did under president clinton with a sensible, balanced approach, one that led to increasing wages across the board, increasing productivity, increasing employment, and a budget surplus in 2000 before president george w. bush took over. last year we cook a step in that direction. we cut $1 trillion in federal spending, we don't hear much about it particularly from the other side of the aisle. but what it means is that every discretionary program will see less funding for the next decade, which will have a huge impact on my state and every state in this country. now, if we're going to cut spending on education, research, and transportation to the tune of approximately $1 trillion, i think most americans recognize that the other side of the equation has to be considered. revenue needs to be part of the balance plan to reduce the debt. and the simple fact of the matter is that virtually every expert panel and commentator has said clearly in order to reduce the deficit to a sustainable level, revenues have to go up. it's a matter of
representative cole if we restore the clinton tax rates today than in ten years, 2022, we have the deficit where it should be. >> guest: he is certainly correct to generate a great deal more revenue. if we did that let's say they made for under $50,000 that is a 2,000-dollar tax increase and again i don't think the president wants to do that. he said he doesn't want to do that our side doesn't want to do that. you know, going back to the clinton tax rate, and remember the average american family has taken a terrific hit. the median household income for years ago when the president became the president was around $54,000 a year and is about 50 now. so this portion of the population which is gotten squeezed tremendously i don't think adding an extra tax at the 98 percent is going to, number one, be very helpful to the more helpful to the economic growth. number two it's how much you want the folks to pay? so again, freezing those tax rates with an overwhelming majority of americans is a smart thing to do, we ought to do it and both sides say they want to. >> host: and you said earlier on -- >> gue
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)